sanity, humanity and science - real-world · pdf file2017-02-06 · sanity, humanity...

Click here to load reader

Post on 01-Jul-2018




0 download

Embed Size (px)


  • sanity, humanity and science

    post-autistic economics review Issue no. 36, 24 February 2006 back issues at Subscribers: 8,461 from over 150 countries Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, email "subscribe". To unsubscribe, email "unsubscribe". Send to: [email protected]

    In this issue:

    - Greatest Twentieth-Century Economists Poll - Towards a Concrete Utopian Model of Green Political Economy John Barry...5

    - Economics Is Structured Like a Language William Kaye-Blake . 25 - Errata ... 34 - Comment on Some Primitive Robust Tests of Some Primitive Generalizations... 35 - Web-linked index of pae review articles in 2005.38 - Submissions, etc.......... 40[email protected]

  • post-autistic economics review, issue no. 36


    Results of the post-autistic economics reviews Greatest Twentieth-Century Economists Poll Subscribers to this journal were asked:

    Who were the greatest economists of the 20th-Century? Greatest here means not who most influenced the economics profession or ideology, but rather who most added to our understanding of economic phenomena. Vote for your top five. The economist who is your first choice will be credited with five votes, your second choice with four, your third with three, your fourth with two and your fifth with one. You may vote for fewer than five if you wish. Only subscribers to the post-autistic economics review are eligible to vote. The votes of subscribers who submit more than one set of votes will not be counted.

    1,249 subscribers voted. The results are as follows. 1. John Maynard Keynes 3,253 2. Joseph Alois Schumpeter 1,080 3. John Kenneth Galbraith 904 4. Amartya Sen 708 5. Joan Robinson 607 6. Thorstein Veblen 591 7. Michal Kalecki 481 8. Friedrich Hayek 469 9. Karl Polanyi 456 10. Piero Sraffa 383

    11. Joseph Stiglitz 333 12. Kenneth Arrow 320 13. Milton Friedman 319 13. Paul Samuelson 319 15. Paul Sweezy 268 16. Herman Daly 267 17. Herbert Simon 250 18. Ronald Coase 246 19. Gunnar Myrdal 216 20. Alfred Marshall 211

  • post-autistic economics review, issue no. 36


    21. Albert Hirschmann 208 22. Nicholoas Georgescu-Roegen 205 23. Kenneth Boulding 174 24. Wassily Leontief 153 25. Nicholas Kaldor 141 26. Douglas North 138 27. Raul Prebisch 102 28. John Hicks 97 29. Ernest Mandel 87 30. Ludwig von Mises 78 31. John R.Commons 76 32. Richard R.Nelson 72 33. George Akerlof 71 34. E. F. Schumacher 67 35. Paul Krugman 64 36. Daniel Kahneman 60 37. Gary Becker 58 38. Robert Heilbroner 57 39. Hyman Minsky 54 40. Thomas Schelling 53 41. Arthur Lewis 52 42. John Nash 51 43. Samir Amin 49 43. James Buchanan 49 45. Celso Furtado 48 45. John von Neuman 48 47. Irving Fisher 43 48. Jan Tinbergen 42 49. Maurice Dobb 41 49. Simon Kuznets 41 51. Robert Solow 40 52. Michel Aglietta 38 52. Nancy Folbre 38 54. Silvio Gesell 37 54. Rosa Luxemburg 37 56. Vernon Smith 35 57. Mason Gaffney 34

  • post-autistic economics review, issue no. 36


    58. Robert Lucas 32 58. Oliver Williamson 32 60. Paul Baran 31 61. Franois Perroux 28 62. George Shackle 27 62. Rudolf Steiner 27 62. James Tobin 27 62. Vladimir Lenin 27 66. Luigi Passinetti 26 67. Brian Arthur 24 67. Deirdre McCloskey 24 67. Tony Lawson 24 70. Clarence Ayres 23 70. Knut Wicksell 23 72. Mancur Olson 22 72. Maurice Allais 22 72. Ha-Joon Chang 22 72. Christopher Freeman 22 72. Max Weber 22 78. Hernando de Soto 21 78. Samuel Bowles 20 78. George Stigler 20 78. Anwar Shaikh 20 78. Amos Tversky 20 82. Geoffrey Hodgson 19 82. Frank Knight 19 82. Vilfredo Pareto 19 82. Lance Taylor 19 86. Andre Gunder Frank 18 86. Immanuel Wallerstein 18 88. Louis O. Kelso 17 88. Janos Kornai 17 90. Robert Boyer 16 90. Paul Davidson 16 90. William Kapp 16 90. Abba Lerner 16 94. William Baumol 15 94. Diane Elson 15 94. Pierangelo Garegnani 15 94. Roy Harrod 15 94. Franco Modigliani 15 94. Richard Thaler 15 94. William Vickrey 15 For people receiving less than 15 votes go to Editors Note The exact geographical distribution of the voters in this poll is unknowable. However it is reasonable to assume that it resembles the distribution of visitors to during the voting period. The site statistics for the month of January 2006, showing the distribution of visitors between the top 30 of a total of 127 countries, are available at Thanks to all of you who voted. EF

  • post-autistic economics review, issue no. 36


    Forum on Economic Reform In recent decades the alliance of neoclassical economics and neoliberalism has hijacked the term economic reform. By presenting political choices as market necessities, they have subverted public debate about what economic policy changes are possible and are or are not desirable. This venue promotes discussion of economic reform that is not limited to the one ideological point of view. Towards a Concrete Utopian Model of Green Political Economy: From Economic Growth and Ecological Modernisation to Economic Security John Barry (Queens University Belfast, UK)

    Copyright: John Barry 2006

    Abstract Much of the thinking about the appropriate political economy to underpin sustainable development has been either utopian (as in some green political views) or business as usual approaches. This article suggests that ecological modernisation is the dominant conceptualisation of sustainable development within the UK and other developed Northern polities and most corporate/business interests, and illustrates this by looking at some key sustainable development policy documents from the UK Government. While critical of the reformist policy telos of ecological modernisation, supporters of a more radical version of sustainable development need to also be aware of the strategic opportunities of this policy discourse. In particular, the article suggests that the discourse of economic security, which can be attached to a radicalised notion of ecological modernisation, ought to be used as a way of articulating a radical, robust and principled understanding of sustainable development, which offers a normatively compelling and policy-relevant path to outlining aspects of a green political economy to underpin sustainable development.


    One of the weakest and less developed areas of broadly green/sustainable development thinking has been its economic analysis. What analyses there are within the green political canon are largely utopian usually based on an argument for the complete transformation of modern society and economy as the only way to deal with ecological catastrophe, often linked to a critique of the socio-economic failings of capitalism that echo a broadly radical Marxist/socialist or anarchist analysis or underdeveloped due, in part, to the need to outline and develop other aspects of green political theory and the challenge of sustainability. However, this gap within green thinking has recently been filled with a number of scholars, activists, think tanks, and environmental NGOs who have outlined various models of green political economy to underpin sustainable development political aims, principles and objectives, of which ecological modernisation is pre-eminent.

    The aim of this article is to offer a draft of a realistic, but critical, version of green political economy to underpin the economic dimensions of radical views of sustainable development. It is written explicitly with a view to encouraging others to respond to it in the necessary collaborative and interdisciplinary effort to think through this political economy bottom line of sustainable development. The combining of realism and radicalism marks this article which takes as its starting point that we cannot build or seek to create a sustainable economy ab nihlo, but must begin from where we are, with the structures, institutions, modes of production, laws, regulations and so on that we have. This does not of course mean simply accepting these as immutable or

  • post-autistic economics review, issue no. 36


    set in stone - after all, many of the current institutions, principles and structures underpinning the dominant economic model are the very causes of unsustainable development but we do need to recognise that we must work with (and through in the terms of the original German Green Partys slogan of marching through the institutions) these existing structures as well as changing and reforming and in some cases abandoning them as either unnecessary or positively harmful to the creation and maintenance of a sustainable economy and society.

    Equally, the realism that this article promotes also recognises that an alternative economy and society must be based in the reality that most people (in the west) will not, under current political and economic conditions, democratically vote for radical changes to how society and the economy operate, especially if those changes are viewed as involving sacrifice and a diminution in life chances or a narrowing of aspirations for a better life for them and their children. Realism and strategic considerations suggest that we must accept that any putative green or sustainable economy must be one that is recogn